Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach

Judicial Review, Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach are terms which come often in news. In this post, we shall compare Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach.

Judicial Review

Though legislature has the power to make laws, this power is not absolute. Judicial Review is the process by which the Judiciary review the validity of laws passed by the legislature.

• From where does the power of Judicial Review come from: From the Constitution of India itself (Article 13).
• The power of judicial review is evoked to protect and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
• Article 13 of the Constitution prohibits the Parliament and the state legislatures from making laws that “may take away or abridge the fundamental rights” guaranteed to the citizens of the country.
• The provisions of Article 13 ensure the protection of the fundamental rights and consider any law “inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights” as void.
• Under Article 13, the term ‘law’ includes any “Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage” having the force of law in India.
• Examples of Judicial Review: The striking down of the Section 66A of the IT Act as it was against the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism denotes a more active role taken by Judiciary to dispense social justice. When we speak of Judicial Activism, we point fingers to the invented mechanisms which have no constitutional backing (Eg: Suo moto (on its own) cases, Public Interest Litigations (PIL), new doctrines etc).

• From where does the power of Judicial Activism come from: Judicial Activism has no constitutional articles to support its origin. Indian Judiciary invented it. There is a similar concept in the United States of America.
• Suo Motto cases and the innovation of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), with the discontinuation of the principle of Locus Standi,  have allowed the Judiciary to intervene in many public issues, even when there is no complaint from the concerned party.
• Although the earlier instances of Judicial Activism was connected with enforcing Fundamental Rights, nowadays, Judiciary has started interfering in the governance issues as well.
• Examples of Judicial Activism: Invention of the ‘basic structure doctrine’ in the ‘Keshavanad Bharati case’ (1973) by which Supreme Court further extended the scope of Judicial Review, incorporation of due process of law instead of procedure established by law, collegium system, institutionalization of PIL, banning smoking in public places based on PIL, the order by Supreme Court in 2001 to provide mid-day meals to schoolchildren, the order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) banning diesel trucks older than 10 years in Delhi etc.

 Judicial Overreach

The line between Judicial activism and Judicial Overreach is very narrow. In simple terms, when Judicial activism crosses its limits and becomes Judicial adventurism it is known as Judicial Overreach. When the judiciary oversteps the powers given to it, it may interfere with the proper functioning of the legislative or executive organs of government.

• From where does the power of Judicial Overreach come from: Nowhere. This is undesirable in any democracy.
• Judicial Overreach destroys the spirit of separation of powers.
• Examples of Judicial Overreach: What makes any action activism or overreach is based upon the perspective of individuals. But in general, striking down of NJAC bill and the 99th constitutional amendment, the order passed by the Allahabad High Court making it compulsory for all Bureaucrats to send their children to government school, misuse the power to punish for contempt of court etc. are considered as Judicial Overreach.

Capital Punishment, Mercy Pleas and the Supreme Court

Capital punishment remains and will remain a hot topic across the world. It is not easy to reach a consensus on the question ” Should the death penalty be abolished?”.

There are countries which abolished Capital Punishment. There are countries which did not. India is one among the countries where the death penalty exists, but now only for the “rarest of rare cases”.

Let’s see in this article, the major issues and news related to capital punishment and judiciary. Don’t forget to come back to visit this post again as we normally update our articles when SC pass any new observations or guidelines.

Capital Punishment in India Overview

India retains capital punishment for a number of serious offences. But the imposition of capital punishment is not always followed by execution (even when it is upheld on appeal), because of the possibility of commutation to life imprisonment. The number of people executed in India since independence in 1947 is a matter of dispute; official government statistics claim that only about 60 people had been executed since independence.

However, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties cited information from Appendix 34 of the 1967 Law Commission of India report showing that 1,422 executions took place in 16 Indian states from 1953 to 1963, and has suggested that the total number of executions since independence may be as high as 3,000 to 4,300.

In December 2007, India voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. In November 2012, India again upheld its stance on capital punishment by voting against the UN General Assembly draft resolution seeking to ban the death penalty.

Rarest of the rare case doctrine

There are various sections under IPC (302, 376A etc) and other statutes which award capital punishment for the convict. But the Supreme Court of India ruled in 1983 that the death penalty should be imposed only in “the rarest of rare cases.”

While stating that honour killings fall within the “rarest of the rare” category, Supreme Court has recommended the death penalty be extended to those found guilty of committing “honour killings”, which deserve to be a capital crime.

The Supreme Court also recommended death sentences to be imposed on police officials who commit police brutality in the form of encounter killings

IPC 376A – Rape/Sexual Assault

An amendment in the year 2013 provided for the death penalty in case he inflicts an injury upon woman during rape which causes her death or to be in a persistent vegetative state. The death penalty can also be handed down to repeat rape offenders under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Laws other than IPC for Capital Punishment

In addition to the Indian Penal Code, a series of legislation enacted by the Parliament of India have provisions for the death penalty.

1. Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987: Part. II, Section 4(1).
2. Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 3(2)(i).
3. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Clemency and Mercy Petition in the Indian Constitution

After the award of the death sentence by a sessions (trial) court, the sentence must be confirmed by a High Court to make it final. Once confirmed, the condemned convict has the option of appealing to the Supreme Court.

Where the condemned prisoner is unable to appeal to the Supreme Court; or where the court either refuses to hear the appeal or upholds the death sentence, the prisoner also has the option of submitting a ‘mercy petition’ to the President of India and the Governor of the State.  

Who grants pardon? The President?

Article 72(1) of the Constitution of India states:

The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence where the sentence is a sentence of death.

Despite the language of the constitutional provisions, clemency is exercised not by the President but by the government.

For all practical purposes, the decision on a mercy petition is arrived at within the MHA as the subject has been allocated to the Department of Home, MHA vide the second schedule of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961. Once a convict submits a mercy petition to the President, the Rashtrapathi Bhavan forwards the petition to the Ministry of Home Affairs, for seeking the Cabinet’s advice on the matter.

The MHA then forwards the same to the concerned State Government for eliciting its views.

It is only then the MHA formulates its advice and tenders it to the President, on behalf of the Council of Ministers).

A memorandum on the case is prepared by a junior official in the Ministry and on the basis of the same, a Joint Secretary or an Additional Secretary ‘recommends’ a decision to commute the death sentence or reject the mercy petition. This ‘recommendation’ is considered by the Minister of Home Affairs who makes the final ‘recommendation’, on behalf of the Cabinet of Ministers, to the President.

Article 74(1) provides the President with only one opportunity to return the ‘recommendation’ for the decision to be reviewed. If no change is made, the President has to sign his assent.

PS: The Constitution doesn’t have any maximum time-limit within which a mercy petition has to be decided. There have been instances of mercy petitions lying with the President for over a decade without any decision being taken. The MHA can’t ask the President to speed up the process. Similarly, a mercy petition may get delayed at MHA or state level too.

Is everything over, once the President rejects the mercy petition and signs his assent?

No.

Things are not over here.

There is still hope for the convict.

President’s pardon/rejection/delay is also subjected to judicial review. Delay in deciding mercy plea is a relevant ground for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. This is what happened in the recent Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India case.

The Supreme Court has also directed all prison authorities to give a gap of 14 days between intimation of the rejection of mercy petition to the condemned prisoner and his actual execution. In this time period, the convict can seek judicial redress of grievances against the rejection of mercy plea. Also note that if the President grants an unfair pardon, SC can overrule it.

So the long route of capital punishment can be summarized as follows :

1. Trail court awards death sentence.
2. High court confirms it.
3. Supreme court confirms it on appeal.
4. Mercy petition filed to President of India.
5. President of India forwards it to Ministry of Home Affairs.
6. Ministry of Home Affairs routes it to the state concerned.
7. State lets MHA know its advice.
8. MHA forwards its recommendation to the President of India.
9. The President of India rejects that advice and asks MHA to reconsider it.
10. MHA submits its recommendation again.
11. The President of India signs it. Mercy is denied.
12. The convict can ask for Judicial review.
13. The Judicial review verdict is final.

Highlights of recent SC judgement on Mercy Plea (Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India)

The following are the 12 guidelines issued by the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh on various procedures before executing a death convict.

1. Solitary Confinement: (only in last 14 days)
2. Legal Aid:
3. Procedure in placing the mercy petition before the President:
4. Communication of Rejection of Mercy Petition by the Governor:
5. Communication of Rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President:
6. Death convicts are entitled as a right to receive a copy of the rejection of the mercy petition by the President and the Governor.
7. Minimum 14 days notice for execution:
8. Mental Health Evaluation:
9. Physical and Mental Health Reports:
10. Furnishing documents to the convict:
11. Final Meeting between the Prisoner and his Family:
12. Post Mortem Reports:

Extra articles related to capital punishment worth reading

1. The journey of a mercy plea – Indian Express.
2. How does the President decide mercy petitions?
3. Mercy plea is in the dock – India Today.
4. Capital Punishment – Wikipedia.

Special leave Petition vs Review Petition vs Curative Petition vs Mercy Petition

 

 

Special Leave Petition vs Review Petition vs Curative Petition vs Mercy Petition: What are the differences?

Supreme Court of India has recently passed many important judgments that transformed India.

Connected with judgments, four terms are often seen in the news – (1) Special Leave Petition (2) Review Petition (3) Curative Petition and (4) Mercy Petition. Do you know the difference between these terms? Let’s first start with the Special Leave Petition (SLP).

What is a Special Leave Petition (SLP)?

SLP is a petition seeking special permission (leave) from Supreme Court to appeal against a judgment passed in any of the lower courts or tribunals in India. SLP is not an appeal but a petition filed for an appeal.

The Supreme Court may accept or reject the same.

Constitutional Provisions behind Special Leave Petition

Special leave to appeal is filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Can High Court review its order if SLP is rejected by the Supreme Court?

The dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same.

High Courts can still review its own judgment even if the SLP is rejected by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court has also clarified that it will not make any difference whether the review petition was filed before the filing of special leave petition or was filed after the dismissal of a special leave petition.

What is a Review Petition?

The review petition is a petition in which it is prayed before the Court of law to review its order or judgement which it has already pronounced.

The Court may accept a review petition when a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

When a review takes place, the Court will not take fresh stock of the case but just correct grave errors that have resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Also, judicial review can only correct a “patent error” and not “minor mistakes of inconsequential import”.

The provision of review is an exception to the principle of stare decisis. Principle of stare decisis binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

Constitutional Provisions behind Review Petition

Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and the rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court of India has the power to review its judgment pronounced by it.

As per Supreme Court rules, a review petition is to be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of judgment or order and that petition should be circulated without oral arguments to the same bench that delivered the judgment.

Who can file a review petition?

It is not necessary that only parties to a case can seek a review of the judgment on it. As per the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules, any person aggrieved by judgment can seek a review.

No oral arguments by lawyers except in death penalty cases

Review petitions would ordinarily be entertained without oral arguments by lawyers. It is heard “through circulation” by the judges in their chambers.

In exceptional cases, the court allows an oral hearing. In a 2014 case, the Supreme Court held that review petitions in all death penalty cases will be heard in open court by a Bench of three judges.

Who hears the review petitions?

Review petitions are heard, as far as practicable, by the same combination of judges who delivered the order or judgment that is sought to be reviewed. If a judge has retired or is unavailable, a replacement is made keeping in mind the seniority of judges.

Should the Court allow every review petition?

The court does not entertain every review petition filed. It exercises its discretion to allow a review petition.

Usually, the court allows a review petition only when it shows the grounds for seeking the review.

Grounds for seeking a review of a judgment

Supreme Court laid down three grounds for seeking a review of a verdict –

• the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
• mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
• any sufficient reason that is analogous to the other two grounds.

Note: In the Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd case (2013), the court laid down nine principles on when a review is maintainable. The court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

Examples of review petitions recently in the news

Supreme Court agreed to review its Sabarimala verdict but refused to do so in the Rafale case.

What if a review petition fails?

The Supreme Court’s is the court of last resort. Its verdict should never result in a miscarriage of justice. To prevent the abuse of its process, the court itself evolved the concept of a curative petition, which can be heard after a review is dismissed.

What is a Curative Petition?

A curative petition is a judicial innovation and a new concept in the Indian legal system.

It is the last and final resort to the judicial remedy of any grievances which is not normally given an open-court hearing.

The origin of curative petitions

The concept originated from the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr. over the question whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment/order of the Supreme Court after the dismissal of a review petition.

The court used the Latin maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, which means that an act of the court shall prejudice no one. Thus, it applies when the court is bound to undo a wrong done to a party by the act of court itself.

The Supreme Court held that it may reconsider its judgements in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice.

Constitutional Provisions behind Curative Petition

Curative Petition is also supported by Article 137 of the Indian Constitution.

A curative petition is needed to provide a final recourse of correcting any errors in judgement where technical difficulties or other apprehensions over reopening a case prevents from reviewing judgements.

Who hears the curative petitions?

Curative petitions are heard by the top three judges including the Chief Justice of India plus the judges who dismissed the review petition.

Conditions for Curative Petition

Supreme Court has laid down some specific conditions to entertain curative petitions:

• The petitioner has to establish that the principles of natural justice were violated and fear of the bias of the judge and judgement that adversely affected him.
• The petition shall state specifically that the grounds mentioned had been taken in the review petition and that it was dismissed by circulation.
• A curative petition must be first circulated to a Bench of the three senior-most judges, and the judges who passed the concerned judgment, if available.
• If a majority of the judges conclude that the matter needs hearing should it be listed before the same Bench.
• The Bench at any stage of consideration of the curative petition can ask a senior counsel to assist it as amicus curiae (Friend of the court).
• A curative petition is usually decided by judges in the chamber unless a specific request for an open-court hearing is allowed.
• The court could impose “exemplary costs” to the petitioner if his plea lacks merit.

What is a Mercy Petition?

Mercy Petition is the last resort of a person when all the remedies available to him/her under the prevailing laws and the Constitution are exhausted.

A mercy petition may be filed before the President of India under Article 72 or the Governor of the state under Article 161.

Even though the mercy petition is filed before the President or the Governor of the state, practically, the decision on the petition is taken by the Council of Ministers (CoM).

The petition will be treated on mercy and not on the legality of the case.

However, any arbitrary decision on mercy pleas, including rejection, by the President of India or Governor can be questioned in the Court.

Mercy petition in death sentence cases

A mercy petition is the last resort available to a convict having death sentence after all legal and judicial remedies like review and curative petitions are exhausted.

For seeking mercy petition, the death sentence by a trial court must be confirmed by the High Court. Then the convict has an option to appeal to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court either refuses to hear the appeal or upholds the death sentence, then the convict or his relative can submit a mercy petition to the President of India (Articles 72) or the Governor of the State (161).

Grounds upon pardon can be sought

In a mercy petition, the person concerned is required to state the grounds upon pardon is sought.

These grounds may not be worth considering from a legal point of view.

But the grounds such as being the only bread earner of the family, the physical condition of the convict, age or the court committing a mistake or error inadvertently have value while consideration by the President.

Supreme Court in the Kehar Singh v Union of India 1988 case held that the grant of pardon by the President is an act of grace and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 72 of the Constitution provides that the President shall have the power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence
  • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;
  • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
  • in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.
• Similarly, under Article 161 the Governor has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends

Procedure for handling Mercy Petitions

There is no written procedure for dealing with mercy petitions.

A convict under the sentence of death is allowed to make the petition within a period of seven days after the date on which the Superintendent of jail informs him about the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.

The petitions are received by the President’s secretariat on behalf of the President, which is then forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs for seeking the advice of the Cabinet.

The Home Ministry in consultation with the concerned State Government discusses the merits of the petition and tenders its advice to the President, on behalf of the Council of Ministers.

The President can return the recommendation only once for reconsideration. If no change is made, the President has to sign his assent.

The Constitution doesn’t specify any time-limit within which a mercy petition has to be decided.

Need for a Standard Procedure while handling Mercy Petition

There is no guideline or written procedure that the government or the President is bound by while processing mercy petitions.

There is no opportunity of a personal hearing before the authorities and as a result, all relevant information may not be made available.

Under the present scheme, there exists a possibility of two persons being treated differently despite having the same grounds, i.e. one person getting relief and another being denied for cases of similar nature.

No prescribed procedure indicates the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power and consequent discrimination. This is in contravention to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution.

In the absence of any standard procedure, there is no specific time-limit to decide mercy petitions.

There are instances of mercy petitions lying undecided with the President for over a decade.

In some cases, the convicts were able to take advantage of the delay and get their death sentences remitted on this ground.

International Standards

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which India is a party to, has provisions against torturous, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

Inordinate and unreasonable delay in execution of death sentence amounts to torture as expounded by the Supreme Court in the Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India case.

The ICCPR also establishes the right to life as an inherent, inalienable right that cannot be taken away arbitrarily.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights preserves equality of all persons before the law and equal protection of the law.

Any discriminatory treatment due to lack of procedure or otherwise stands in violation of these international standards.

Mercy Plea vs Capital Punishment

Every civilized country recognizes the need for providing a pardoning power as an act of grace while many countries have started the debate on the utility of the death penalty itself. The Indian Constitution also recognizes the need for providing a final avenue of justice in the form of mercy petition.

While each case is unique, there is a need for a prescribed procedure on handling mercy petitions to remove arbitrariness and to specify definitive grounds for considering relief. Specifying a time limit for disposing of mercy petitions is also needed to allay the apprehensions of both convicts and victims.

Examples of Mercy Petitions recently in the news

Recently the President rejected the mercy petition of one of the convicts of Nirbhaya case. This comes after a Delhi court stayed the death sentence of four convicts for the third time observing that they cannot be executed while a mercy petition is pending before the President.

As per law, if a convict is awarded death sentence, he has three options — review petition and curative petition before the Supreme Court and finally mercy petition before the President. In this case, a review of the rejection of the mercy petition was also filed before the Supreme Court.

Review Petition vs Curative Petition vs Mercy Petition: Conclusion

Various legal remedies available in order of filing: review petition → curative petition → mercy petition.

As per law, if a convict is awarded death sentence, he has three options – review petition and curative petition before the Supreme Court and finally mercy petition before the President.

While the decisions of the lower courts can be reviewed under various articles of the Constitution, a provision for the apex court to review an order passed by them is much needed as a final measure of correcting judicial errors. However, various legal remedies available, including a review of the rejection of mercy petition, are now being used to effectively delay the implementation of the verdict.

In this context, it is essential to arrive at a balance between speedy justice and following just and reasonable procedures. Certain aspects like specifying the time within which review and curative petitions are to be filed, prescribing procedures that avoid duplication of processes in case of multiple convicts facing death penalty must be addressed. Both rights – the rights of the accused and the rights of a victim to seek justice are sacrosanct.

Procedure Established by Law vs Due Process of Law

In this post, we shall see the meaning of two important terms often cited in Supreme Court Judgments ie. Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law.

The former is Indian constitutional doctrine and the latter is American, but now the boundaries are very narrow.

Let’s start our discussion with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. What does it say?

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India

Protection of life and personal liberty:  No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

Procedure Established by Law vs Due Process of Law

As we have seen, the term “procedure established by law” is used directly in the Indian constitution. Due Process of Law has much wider significance, but it is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. The due process doctrine is followed in the United States of America, and Indian constitutional framers purposefully left that out. But in most of the recent judgments of the supreme court, the due process aspect is coming into the picture again. Let’s see the difference in detail.

Case 1: Procedure Established by Law

It means that a law that is duly enacted by the legislature or the concerned body is valid if it has followed the correct procedure. Following this doctrine means that, a person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty according to the procedure established by law.

So, if Parliament passes a law, then the life or personal liberty of a person can be taken off according to the provisions and procedures of that law.

This doctrine has a major flaw. What is it?

It does not seek whether the laws made by Parliament is fair, just and not arbitrary.

“Procedure established by law” means a law duly enacted is valid even if it’s contrary to principles of justice and equity. The strict following of the procedure established by law may raise the risk of compromise to life and personal liberty of individuals due to unjust laws made by the law-making authorities. It is to avoid this situation, SC stressed the importance of the due process of law.

Case 2: Due Process of Law

Due process of law doctrine not only checks if there is a law to deprive the life and personal liberty of a person but also see if the law made is fair, just and not arbitrary.

If SC finds that any law as not fair, it will declare it as null and void. This doctrine provides for more fair treatment of individual rights.

Under due process, it is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person and laws that states enact must conform to the laws of the land like – fairness, fundamental rights, liberty etc. It also gives the judiciary to access fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty of any legislation.

The difference in layman’s terms is as below: Due Process of Law = Procedure Established by Law + The procedure should be fair and just and not arbitrary.

Extra Articles worth reading

1. Of constitutional ‘due process’: The Hindu – Are we shifting from original constitutional norms?
2. On MCOCA: Tehelka – A Law Inconsistent With The Idea Of India.
3. Due Process of law: Manupatra.

History of Due Process of law

The due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

Change of situation in India: Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978)

In India, a liberal interpretation is made by the judiciary after 1978 and it has tried to make the term ‘Procedure established by law’ as synonymous with ‘Due process’ when it comes to protecting individual rights.

In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978) SC held that – ‘procedure established by law’ within the meaning of Article 21 must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired the same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.

Judicial Doctrines – Principles of Constitutional Law Explained

A doctrine is a belief, principle or position – usually upheld by authorities like courts. As far as Indian Judiciary is concerned, there are many doctrines. Many of you may be familiar with the Doctrine of Basic Structure. In this article, we will be dealing all important Indian Judicial Doctrines.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament.

But what should be considered as the basic features of the Indian Constitution is not explicitly defined by the Judiciary. It is widely believed that democracy, federalism, independence of the judiciary, secularism etc. are part of the basic features.

The claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a “basic” feature is determined by the Court on a case-by-case basis.

This doctrine was first expressed in Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973). Thanks to Kesavananda Bharati, Palkhivala and the seven judges who were in the majority, India continues to be the world’s largest democracy.

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

• This doctrine was brought about to bring harmony between the different lists mentioned in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. Different subjects are mentioned in different lists in this schedule.
• However, there can be a situation where an entry of one list overlaps with that of another list. This is the time when this doctrine comes into the picture.
• It was said that the words of the entries should be given wide amplitude and the courts shall bring harmony between the different entries and lists.
• Supreme Court applied this Doctrine in the case of Tika Ramji vs the State of UP.

Doctrine of Eclipse

• The doctrine states that if any law becomes contradictory to the fundamental rights, then it does not permanently die but becomes inactive.
• As soon as that fundamental right is omitted from the Constitution, the inactive law becomes revived.
• When a court strikes a part of the law, it becomes unenforceable. Hence, an ‘eclipse’ is said to be cast on it. The law just becomes invalid but continues to exist.
• The eclipse is removed when another (probably a higher level court) makes the law valid again or an amendment is brought to it by way of legislation.
• Supreme Court first applied this doctrine in the case of Bhikaji vs State of Madhya Pradesh where it applied to pre-constitutional law. The extension to the post-constitutional law was stated in the case of Dulare Lodh vs ADJ Kanpur.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance 

• This doctrine comes into picture when there is a conflict between the different subjects in different lists. There is an interpretation of List 1 and List 2 of the Constitution of India.
• There can be a situation when a subject of one list touche the subject of another List. Hence this doctrine is applied then.
• Pith and Substance means the true nature of law.
• The real subject matter is challenged and not its incidental effect on another field.
• The doctrine has been applied in India also to provide a degree of flexibility in the otherwise rigid scheme of distribution of powers.
• The reason for the adoption of this doctrine is that if every legislation were to be declared invalid on the grounds that it encroached powers, the powers of the legislature would be drastically circumscribed.
• It was applied by the Supreme Court in the case State of Bombay Vs F.N Balasar.

 Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary Powers

• This principle is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance.
• What it means is that the power to legislate on a subject also includes the power to legislate on ancillary matters that are reasonably connected to that subject.
• For example, the power to impose tax would include the power to search and seizure to prevent the evasion of that tax. However, power relating to banking cannot be extended to include power relating to non-banking entities.
• However, if a subject is explicitly mentioned in a State or Union list, it cannot be said to be an ancillary matter. For example, the power to tax is mentioned in specific entries in the lists and so the power to tax cannot be claimed as ancillary to the power relating to any other entry of the lists.
• As held in the case of State of Rajasthan vs G Chawla AIR 1959, the power to legislate on a topic includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in the topic.
• However, this does not mean that the scope of the power can be extended to any unreasonable extent. Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against such extended construction. For example, in R M D Charbaugwala vs State of Mysore, AIR 1962, SC held that betting and gambling is a state subject as mentioned in Entry 34 of State list but it does not include power to impose taxes on betting and gambling because it exists as a separate item as Entry 62 in the same list.

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

• This is applied when the legislature enacting the law has transgressed its power as is mentioned in the Constitution.
• The expression “colourable legislation” simply means what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly too.
• It is the substance that is material and not the outward appearance.
• Hence there are certain situations when it seems that it is within the power of the legislature enacting the law but actually it is transgressing. This is when this doctrine comes into the picture.
• It was applied by the Supreme Court of India in the case State of Bihar vs Kameshwar Singh and it was held that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was invalid.

Doctrine of Severability

• According to this doctrine, if there is any offending part in a statute, then, only the offending part is declared void and not the entire statute.
• Article 13 states that the portion that is invalid should be struck off and not the entire one. The valid part can be kept.
• However, it should be kept in mind that even after separation; the remaining part should not become ambiguous.
• If the remaining part becomes ambiguous, then the whole statute would be declared void and of no use.
• Supreme Court in the case of RMDC vs. UOI states that doctrine of severability is a matter of substance and not of form.

Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

• Article 245 states that a state legislature can make laws on the territory of the state and not on extraterritorial laws provided there is nexus or connection between the sate and the object of the legislation.
• Article 245(1) states that the Parliament of India can make laws for the whole or any territory of India.
• Similarly, a state legislature can do the same.
• Such laws cannot be declared invalid on the growth that they are extraterritorial according to Article 245(2).
• To determine whether a particular legislation is within the territorial nexus or not, this doctrine is applied.
• Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Tata Iron Steel vs. the State of Bihar.

Doctrine of Laches

• Laches means delay. The doctrine of laches is based on the maxim that “equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.” (Black’s Law Dictionary).
• The outcome is that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party.
• Elements of laches include knowledge of a claim, unreasonable delay, neglect, which taken together hurt the opponent.
• It is well known that one who wants remedy must come before the court within a reasonable time.
• Lapse of time violates equity and it is against the concept of justice.
• Hence the issue came up whether delay can be a ground to deny fundamental rights under Article 32.
• It was said that denial of fundamental rights only on the ground of delay is not justified as fundamental rights are basic and very essential for the development of the individual.
• Supreme Court under the case of Ravindra Jain vs UOI stated that remedy under article 32 can be denied on grounds of unreasonable delay. However, there has been no case to overrule the above-mentioned case law by the Supreme Court order.

Other Important Indian Judicial Doctrines

There are many other doctrines followed by Indian Judiciary. Some of them are

• The Doctrine of Judicial Review.
• The Doctrine of Due Process of Law.
• The Doctrine of Constitutional Morality